| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2016 SLG 804 2016 SLD 804 2016 PLC 445 |
Islamabad High Court
Writ Petitions Nos. 171 and 1376 of 2011, decided on 22nd December, 2015. Date of hearing: 28th October, 2015.
MUHAMMAD ANWAR KHAN KASI, C.J.
Abdul Rehman Siddiqui and Miss Naeeli Khan for Petitioner. Mushtaq Hussain Bhatti and Barrister Bilal Akbar Tarrar for
Respondents.
Writ Petitions Nos. 171 and 1376 of 2011, decided on 22nd December, 2015. Date of hearing: 28th October, 2015.
MUHAMMAD ANWAR KHAN KASI, C.J.
Abdul Rehman Siddiqui and Miss Naeeli Khan for Petitioner. Mushtaq Hussain Bhatti and Barrister Bilal Akbar Tarrar for
Respondents.
SHAKEEL AHMED KIYANI
VS
OGDCL and others
Law:
Section:
Oil and Gas Development Corporation Service Rules, 1994--- ----R. 64(1)---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199---Constitutional petition---Laches, principle of---Scope---Locus poenitentiae, principle of---Applicability---Encashing of Leave policy---Petitioner was Accounts Assistant in Oil and Gas Development Corporation prior to its conversion into a limited company---Authorities demanded recovery of amount received by petitioner as encashing of 569 days LAP accumulated during period served with previous department by invoking statutory service rules---Validity---Petitioner was not only officer of the company who had been singularly subjected to revised leave policy, instead the same had general application but he did not put document to show that remaining officers had voiced their grievances which showed that only petitioner had objection upon some parts of policy---Policy in question was not challenged by him for considerable time it was not plausible that he was not aware of the same till issuance of recovery notice, therefore element of laches was evident---Revised policy was passed under competent authority of law and was accessible to all employees of the company---Policy directive of general application could not be issued without giving audience to all persons dealt thereunder because the same remained open to challenge by any employee but even petitioner had not raised any objection upon the same within the corporate hierarchy---Benefit which had been issued in derogation of lawful authority could not be presumed to create valid right in favour of recipient and in such cases principle of locus poenitentiae did not apply---High Court declined to interfere in recovery notice issued by authorities as the same was passed on correct premises---Petition was dismissed in circumstances. Gadoon Textile Mills' case 1997 SCMR 641; Mrs. Farkhanda Talat v. FOP and others 2007 SCMR 886; Secretary M/o Finance GOP v. Muhammad Hussain Shah 2005 SCMR 675; Muhammad Aslam v. Senior VP HBL 2003 PLC (C.S.) 388; Anound Power Generation Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan and others PLD 2001 SC 340; Muhammad Rashid v. FOP and others 2000 SCMR 1297; Federation of Pakistan and others…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492